Newspaper Page Text
THE REPUBLIC' TUESDAY. MAY 28. 1901.
x I ? sf s. 'i a ' S-5. SUPREME MR. JUSTICE BROWN WRITES JUSTICE HARLAN HAS FEARS OF LEGISLATIVE ABSOLUTISM. Mr. Justice Harlan. In his dissenting opinion, says: "I take leave to say that. If the principle now announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, the result will be a radical and mis chievous change In our system of government. "We will, In that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written Constitution, Into an era of legislative absolutism. In respect to many rights dear to all peoples who love freedom. "In my opinion. Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Stilt less Is It true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. "This nation Is under the control of a written Constitution which Is the su preme law of the land and the only 6ource of the powers which our Government or any branch or officer of it may exercise at any time or at any place. "The .dea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth by conquest or treaty and hold them as mere colonies or provinces. Is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words of the Constitution. "It will be an evil day for the American liberty if the theory of a govern ment outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence." BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO FOUR, SU PREME COURT DECIDES CONGRESS CONTROLS THE COLONIES. Washington. May 27. Justice Brown to day delivered the opinion ot the Supreme Court of the United States in the case ot Downes b. Collector Bid vv ell of the Port of New York. In -which suit was brought by Downes to recover back duties to the amount of $639.35. exacted and paid under protest upon certain oranges consigned to the plaintiff at New York, and brought thither from the Port of San Juan in the island of Porto Rico during the month of ICovember, 1300. - This case involved the question whether merchandise brought Into the Port of New York from Porto KIco since the passage 0( the Foraker act is exempt from duty, not withstanding the third section of that act. which requires the pavment of "fifteen per cent of the duties which are required to be levied, collected and paid upon like articles of merchandise imported from foreign countries." The Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York sus tained the Government in this position in Imposing a dutj. The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the Circuit Court, saving: IVr are; of opinion that the Island of Porto Rica Is m. territory appurte nant anil belonainir to the United States, but not a part of the linlted States within the revenue elanae of the Conatltutlont that the Foraker act la constitutional o far aa it Im poses duties npon Imports from such Island, and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted In this case. 'the opinion of the court went into the case very fully. Justice Brown, early In hl opin ion, outllred the distinction between this case and the De Lima case, which had Just been decided, saving: In the case of De IJma vs. Bldwell. we hold that upon tne ratification of the treaty of peace with Saln. Porto Rico ceased to be a foreign countr. and that duties vvcre no longer collect ible upon merchandise brought from that Island. We are. now asked to hold that It became a part of the United States within that provision of the Constitution which declares that "all duties. Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States " If Porto Rico be a part of the United States, the Foraker act. Imposing duties upon Its products. Is unconstitutional, not onlv by reason of a violation of the unlformltv clause, but because, bv section 0 vessels bound to or from one State "cannot be obliged to enter, i clear or pay duties in another." The case also Involves the broader question w (ether .the revenue clauses ot the Constitution extend, of their own force, to our newly ac quired territories. The Constitution Itself does not answer the question. Its solution must be found In the nature ot the government created bv that Instrument. In the opinion of its con temporaries, in the practical construction put upon It by Congress, and In the decisions ot this cou-t. Formation of the Government. Justice Brown then entered upon a review of the formation of the Government and the con stitutional provision requiring that "duties. Im posts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." saying that "It la explained by subsequnt provisions of the Constitution that 'io tax or duty shall be laid on articles ex ported from any Stato " and "no preference shall lie given by any regulation of commerce or rev enue to the porta of ono State over those of another, nor snail vessels bound to or from one SUta be obliged to enter, clear or pay dutlea in another." In short, he concluded on that point th Constitution deals with States, their people and, their representatives" The acquisition of territory and tho formation of TtrrUorles ware discussed and many au tnealxlas emoted. Aa a result ot these clta- , the justice uua aown tne xouowmg genera. EUnnsaUnx, then, from the opinion of this court all expressions unnecessary to the dispo sition of the particular case, and gleaning there from the exact point decided In each, the fcl wwloaT propositions may be considered as es tsfettsnaax 1. TUsc the District of Columbia and the Ter ritorial are not States, within the judicial olause of tba Constitution giving Jurisdiction In cases between cttlxens of different States. a. rh.t Territories are not States within the meaning of tho Revised statutes, section 709. permitting writs ot error from this court In cases where the validity ot a Etats's statute la drawn tn Question . That the District ot Columbia, and the Ter ritories are States, a that word is used. In treaties with foreign Powers, with respect to the ownership, disposition and inheritance of prop- 4. 'That tb Territories are not within the elans of the Constitution providing for the cre ation of a Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress may see (It to establish. t. That the Constitution, does not apply to ! -n-tH. nr in trials therein conducted. and that Congress may lawfully provide for such trials before consular tribunals, without the In tervention of a grand or petit Jurj. 6. That where the Constitution has been onoa formally extended by Congress to Territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith. Dred Scott Case. In his opinion. Justice Brown referred at length to the decision of Chief Justice Ta ney In the Dred Scott case, giving especial consideration to the sentiment expressed by him that "there Is no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States, or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure; and If a new State Is admitted it needs no fur ther legislation by Congress, because the Constitution Itself defines the relative rights and powers and duties of the State, and the citizens of the State, and the Federal Government. But no power is given to ac quire a territory to be held and governed permanently In that character." Justice Brown expressed the opinion that It was unfortunate in view of the excited condition of tne country at the time the Scott opinion was rendered. Just before the beginning of the Civil War. that the Chief Justice had felt Impelled to discuss the question upon Its merits. "It is," he'said, "sufficient to say that the country did not acquiesce in the opinion, and that the Civil War, which shortly thereafter followed, pro duced such changes In Judicial, as well as public sentiment, as to seriously Impair tha authority of this case." He added: The power to prohibit slavery In the Terri tories f so different from the power to impose dntles upon territorial products and depends upon such different provisions of the Constitution that they can scarcely be considered as analogous, unless we assumed broadly that avery clause of the constitution attached to the Territories as well as to the States a claim quite Inconsistent with the position of the court in the Canter case. The difficulty with the Dred Scott case was that the court refused to make a distinction between property in general and a wholly ex ceptional class of property. L Powers of Congress. Taking up the case in hand, the Justice continued his opinion, saying: The practical Interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has long been continued and uniform to the effect that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and so far as Congress shall so direct. Notwithstanding Its duty to "guarantee to every State in this Union a re publican form of government." Congress did not hesitate In the original organisation of the ter ritories of Louisiana. Florida, the Northwest Territory, and Its subdivisions ot Ohio. Indiana. Michigan. Illinois and Wisconsin, and still more, recently la the case of Alaska, to establish a form of government bearing a much greater an alogy to a British crown colony than a republican State of America, and to vest the legislative power either In a Governor and Council or a Governor and Judges, to be appointed by the We are also of opinion that power to acquire territory by treaty implies not only the power to em em such territory, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhab itants and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the "American -.- .uhmi tn h nn middle ntuind. between this position and the doctrine that If their In ert aa mh iniraniiifij avwu - COURT'S DECISIONS IN COLONIAL CASES- THE OPINIONS IN THE DE LIMA AND DOWNES SUITS, WHICH INVOLVE OUR RELATIONS WITH THE NEWLY ACQUIRED ISLAND P0S- SESSIONS-STRONG DISSENTING OPINIONS. nexatlon. citizens of the United States their chil dren thereafter horn, whether savages or civilized, are such and entitled to all the rights, privileges and Immunities of cltlien if such be their status the consequences will be extremely serious, indeed. It Is doubtful If Congress would ever as sent to the annexation of territory upon the con dition that Its inhabitants, however foreign they irav be to our habits, traditions and modes of life, shall become at once citizens of the United State in all Its treaties hitherto the treaty-making power has made special provision for this sub ject. Grav e apprehensions of danger are felt by many eminent men a fear lest an unrestrained porses slon of power on the part of Congress may lead to unjust and oppressive legislation, tn which the natural right of territories or their Inhabitant mav be engulfed In a centralised despotism. These -"" however. find no Justification In the action or Congress tn the part century, nor In the con duct or the British Parliament toward It ouil 'n,,Pssesslons " American Revolution. Whatever may be finally decided by the American people as to the status of these islands end their Inhabitants whether they shall be In troduced Into the sisterhood of S'ates. or be permitted to form Independent governments It doe not follow that. In the meantime, awaiting that decision, the people are in the matter of personal rights unprotected by the provisions of our Constitution and subject to the merely arbi trary control of congress. Even If regarded as aliens they are entitled, under the principles of the Constitution, to be protected In life, liberty and propertv. Iarge powers must necessarily be Intrusted to Congress In dealing with these problems, and we are bound to assume that thej will be Judicious ly exercised That these power may be abused is possible But the same, may be said of Its powers under the Constitution as well a out side of It. Human wisdom has never devised a form of government so perfect that it may not be perverted to bad purposes It Is never con clusive to argue against the possession of cer tain powers from possible abuses of them. It Is safe to say that If Congress should venture upon legislation manifestly dictated by selfish Interests. It would receive quick rebuke at the hands of the people. Indeed, It Is scarcely possible tt-st Congress could do a greater injustice to these islands than would be Involved in holding that It could not Impose upon the States taxes and ex cises without extending the same taxes to them. Such requirement would bring them at once within our Internal revenue system, including stamps, licenses, excises and all the parapher nalia of that atem. and applying It to Terri tories which have had no experience of this kind, and where It would prove an Intolerable burden i Did !fot Foresee the Future. Commenting 'upon the virtual absence of provMon in the Constitution for the ac aulsltlon of terrltnrv. Jiintlce Rrnwn snvs It can only be accounted for on the ground him me iraraers oi tnat instrument oia not foresee the country's future possibili ties. In that respect. He says: If It be once conceded that we are at liberty to acquire foreign territory, a presumption arises hit our power with respect to such territory Is the same power which other nations have been accustomed to exercise with respect to ter ritories acquired by them. If. In limiting the power which Congress wa to exercise within the United States, it was also Intended tn limit It with regard to such territories as the people of the United States- should thereafter acquire, such limitations should have been expressed. In stead of that, we find the Constitution speaking onlv to states, except In the territorial clause, which Is absolute In It term and suggestive ot no limitations upon the, power of Congress In dealing with them. The State could only dele gate to Congress such- power as they themselves possessed, and, as 'they had no power to acquire new territory, they had none to delegate In that connection THE LOGICAL INFERENCE FROM THIS IS THVT IF CONGRF.SS HAD POWER TO AC QUIRE NEW TERRITORY WHICH IS CON CEDED. THAT POWHR WAS NOT HAM PERED BT THE CONSTITUTIONAL, PROVIS IONS Case on Ita Merita. In the last paragraph of his opinion, before . announcing tne court s opinion. Justice Brown said: Patriotic and Intelligent men may differ widely as to the deslrabteness ot this or that acquisi tion, but this Is solely a political question. We can only consider this aspect of the case so far aa to say that no construction of the Constitu tion should be adopted which would prevent Con gress from considering each cas upon It merits, unless the language of the Instrument Impera tively demand It. A false step at this time might be fatal to the development at what Chief Justice Marshall called "the American Empire." Choice In some cases, the natural gravitation of small bodies toward large ones In others, the result of a successful war In still others, may 'bring about conditions which would render the annexation of distant possessions desirable It those possessions are Inhabited by alien races, differing from us In religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation and modes of thought, the administration ot government and Justice, ac cording to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible; and the ouestlon at once arises whether larce concessions ought not to be made for a time, that, ultimately our own theo ries may be carried out. and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them WE DECLINE TO HOLD THAT THERE IS ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO FOR BID SUCH ACTION. JUSTICE WHITE DELIVERS A CONCURRING OPINION. Following Justice Brown's opinion In the Downes case. Justice White delivered an opinion, tn which he said Justices Shiran and MeKenna united, concurring In the de cree afflnnlnr the Judgment of the Downea case, but placing It on grounds which he said were not only different from, but in conflict with, thoss expressed by Justice Brown. He said the question at issue was whether the provision of the Constitution airing Cong-re's power to lay duties. Imposts and excises, but equlrlnR that they should be uniform "through out ths United States." had been violated by the Foraker set Imposing duties on goods corning from Porto Rico Into the United States. The propositions, elaborately argued at that trial, that, the Government of the United States being- cre ated by the Conrtltutton. that Instrument, where tt limits the power of ths Oovemment. does so everywhere wherever Its authority ts exerted, were conceded. There never could be any serious question that when the Government of the United States ex ercises an authority which tbe Constitution con fers that the applicable limitations of the Con stitution corrtrol It. Whilst this was true uni versally, in every case, the question was not whether the Constitution followed the flag. but. granting that It did so. what provision was ap plicable to particular cases? The cases which It wss said wars an exception were certain general limitations In th Constitution In favor of liberty and property which withdrew all power from Congress. Such limitations were everywhere ap plicable, and. of course, could never be trans gressed. Im-lew of this, the opinion went on. "there Is In reason then no room tn this eass to contend that Congress can destroy the liberties ot the people of Tporto Rico by exercising In their regard powers against freedom and Justice which the Constitution had absolutely denied." Sole smd Only Issue Imvolved. The sole and only Issue Is. Had Porto Rico, at the time of the passage of the action In question, been Incorporated into and become an Integral part of the United State? Considering this question. Justice White affirmed that the rule of International law was that the relation which an acquired country would bear to the acquiring coun try. In the absence of treaty stipulations, nas to be determined by the country con formably, to Its Institutions; The United States possessed the same txwera on this subject as any other nation. Justice White then went exhaustively In to the history ot theUnlted States, and of Its acquired territories. In support of his assertion that our history from the begin ning had manifested that this power was possessed by the United States. Continuing, hesald: An acknowledgment of our right to acquire territory, coupled with a contention that, when acquired, the territory was absolutely and un fflvslllnritTIr IncstBoraUd Into the United States. ma to admit the power to acquire and Immedi ately to deny Its beneficial existence. To hold that the treaty-making power can not insert condition In acqulrlnr would deprive that power of a necessarv attribute and would confer upon It the authorlt) to destroy the Government of the Unite.! States If million of Inhabitant of alien territory, if acquired by treaty, can. without the desire or consent of the people of the United States, speaking throuah Congress, be Immediately and Irrevocably In corporated Into the United State, the whole structure of the government can be overthrown. While thus aRgrandlilna; the treaty-making poner on the one hand, the construction at tho nnmc nine minimizes u on the otner. in tnat it ritory upon any condition which would guard the people of the United State from the evil of Im mediate Incorporation What also become of the popular branch of Congress, which, though It agree to the Incorporation of alien race, would be Impotent to prevent Its accomplishment? "Conirrcss Incorporates Territory." It Pi then, aa I think. Indubitably settled by the principle of the law of nations, by the na ture or the Government created under the Con stitution, by the exnress and Implied powers conftred upon that Government by the Contltu tlon, bv the mod In which those powers have been executed from the lieglnnlng, and by an un broken line of decision of this court, first an nounced by Marshall and followed and lucidly expounded by Taney, that the treaty-making poner cannot incorporate territory Into the United States without the expressed and Im plied assent of Congress; that It may Insert In a treaty conditions against Immediate lncorpora. tlon. It must follow, therefore, that where a treaty CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER AND OTHERS, DISSENTING, UPHOLD SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION. The chief dissenting opinion in the Dowries case was announced by Chief Jus tice Fuller. Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham Joining in the dlssont. He said the majority, though widely differing in their reasoning, seemed to concur In the view that Porto Itlco belongs to the United States, but nevertheless is not a part ot the United States subject to the provisions of the Constitution in respect to taxes. The Foraker act, under which the duties were levied, created a complete form of government for Porto Rico, with a spe cial provision that the taxes levied In the United States on Porto Rlcan exports should be held as a special fund for i'orto Rico's benefit. It was udmltted that on its face the part of the ntt with reference to duties did not comply with the rule of uni formity prescribed by the Constitution. Continuing, the opinion says: The constitutional unlformfty is a geographical uniformity, but It wa said that Congress tn at tempting to levy these dutlea was not exercising power derived from the first clause of setclon 8. or restricted l It. because. In dealing with the Territories. Congress exercises unlimited powers of government, and. moreover, that these dutlea are merely local taxes This court. In 1ES). when Marshall was Chief Justice, and Washington. William Johnson. Liv ingston, Todd. Duvall and Storv were his asso ciates, took a different view of the power of Congress In the maiter of laving and collecting taxes, duties. Imposts and excises In the Terri tories, and It ruling In Loughborough vs. Blake, 5 Wheat, 317, has never been overruled. Chief Justice Marshall Overruled. It Is cald. In one of the opinions of the ma jority, that the Chief Justice "made certain ob servations which have occasioned some embar rassment tn other cases " 1 agree that the opin ion of the court delivered by him must be em barrassing In this case, for It Is necessary to overrule that decision In order to reach the re sult herein announced Chief Justice Marshall In that ease. In consid ering the provision requiring thst "all duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." said: "Does this term (the United States) designate the whole, or any por tion of the American Empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It Is the name given to our great Republic, which Is com posed of State and Territories. 'The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri. I not less within the united States than Maryland or Pennsylvania: and It Is not less necessarv. on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity In the Im position ot Imposts, duties and excises should be observed In the one than In the other. Since, then, the power to lav and collect taxes, which Includes direct taxes. Is obviously coextensive with the power to laj and collect duties. Imposts and excises, and since the latter extends through out tha United State. It follow that the power to Impose direct taxes also extends throughout the United States." Continuing, Chief Justice Fuller said: "The nronosltlnn thnt Chief Justice, Mar- Shall had erred In his opinion, and that the rule of uniformity was a limitation to the States as such, was declared to be whollv unwarranted, and quite a number of cases were cited In which the Supreme Court and Ccngress.notably by the Thirteenth and Fif teenth amendments to the Constitution, had sustained the view that the United 8tates meant Territories, as well as States" Constitutional Dnlivark Thrown Down. Chief Justice Fuller then advanced the proposition enunciated In Marbury vs. Mad ison, first Crnnch, that the Constitution was written in order to define and limit and keep within its restricted boundaries all persons and departments of Government, and was meant to leave no room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. He added: From Marbury vs Madison to the present day no utterance of this court has Intimated a doubt that, in Its operation on the people by whom and for whom It was established the rational Government is a Oovemment of enumer- ated powers, the exercise nf whtasi la restricted he ' means appropriate and plainly fimnl nn. and which are "not prohibited, but consistent with tha letter ai.u iv.ui oi tiie constitution " ilk puAeis ueieetuert Dy the people to their agents are not enlarged by the expansion of the domain within which they are exercised. When ths restriction on the exercise ot a particular power by a particular agent Is ascertained, that is an end of the question. To hold otherwise 1 to overthrow the bails of our constitutional law. and, moreover. In effect, to reassert the proposition that the States and not the people created the Government. There are many prohibitory clauses In the Constitution, and this court repeatedly has given effect to them In respect ot the Territories and the District of Columbia. The power of the United States to acquire terri tory by consent, by treaty or by discovery and occupation is not disputed, nor Is the proposition that In all international relations, interests and responsibilities the United States Is a separate, independent and sovereign nation, but It does not derive Its powers from International law, which, though a part of our municipal law. Is not a part of the organic law of the land. The source of national power In this country Is the Constitution of the United States, and the Oovernment. as tn our Internal affairs, pos sesses no Inherent sovereign power not derived from that Instrument and consistent with Its letter and spirit. With reference to the paragraph In the treaty of peace declaring that "the civil righto and political status of the native in habitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by Congress," the Chief Justice said this was nothing more than a declaration of the ac cepted principles of International law ap plicable to the status of the Spanish sub jects and. of the native Inhabitants. Chief Justice Fuller absolutely rejected the contention that the rule ot uniformity was not applicable to Porto Rico because it had not been Incorporated Into and become an Integral part of the United States. The word Incorporation had no occult meaning, and whatever Its situation before, the For aker act made Porto Rico an organised Ter ritory of the United States. Result ,of Majority Opinion. He could not accept the view that even after organised "Congress has the power to keep it, like a disembodied shade. In an In termediate state nf ambiguous existence for an Indefinite period, and more than that, that after it has been called from that Umbo commerce with It Is absolutely sub ject to the will of fnneress, irrespective ot constitutional provisions." The concurring opinion of the majority recognized that "Congress, In dealing with the people of new territories or possessions, is bound to respect the fundamental guar antees of life. liberty and property, but as sumes that Congress Is not bound. In those territories or possessions, to follow the rules of taxation prescribed by the Constitution. And yet the power to tax Involves the power to destroy and the levy of duties touches all our people In all places under the Juris diction of tne Government." The logical result is that Congress may prohibit commerce altogether between the States and territories, and may prescribe one rule of taxation In one territory, and a different rule In another. Continuing, he said: That theory assumes that the Constitution cre ated a Government empowered to acquire coun tries throughout the world, to be governed by different rales than those obtaining In the origi nal States and Territories, and substitutes for the present system of republican government a system ot domination over distant Provinces In the exercise of the unrestricted power. In our Judgment, so much of the Porto Rlcan act as authorised the Imposition of these duties Is Invalid, and plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Some argument was made as to general con sequences apprehended to flow from this result, but the language of the Constitution Is too plain and unambiguous to permit Its mesnlng to be thus Influenced. Again, It ts objected on behalf of the Gov ernment that the possession of absolute power Is essential to the acquisition of vast and dis tant Territories, and' that we should regard the situation as It Is to-day rather than as It wsa a century ago. But It must be remembered that, as Marshall and Storey declared, the Constitution was framed for ages to come, and that tbe sagacious men who framed It were wen aware that a mighty future waited 'on their work. . They may not. Indeed, have deliberately con sidered a triumphal progress ot the nation, as each, around, the earth, -but, as Marshall wrote: i"It is not enough to say that this particular case was not In the mind of tbe convention when the article was framed, nor or tha American people -when It was- adopted. It la nscesssry to contains no conditions for Incorporation, and, above all. where It not onh haa no such con ditions, hut expressly provides to the contrary, that Incorporation does not arise until. In the wisdom of Congress, it Is deemed that the acquired territory has reached that Mate where It Is proper that It should enter Into and form a part of the American family. Attention was then called to the fact thnt the trenty of peace expressly provided that the civil rights and political status of the Inhabitants of the Islands should bo deter mined by Congress, and the conclusion was stated ns follows: The result of what has been said la that whim. In an International sense, I'orto Itlco was not a foreign countr. It wai foreign to the United State In a domestic seme. because the Island had not been Incorporated Into the United States, but was merely appurtenant thereto, aa a possession As n necessary consequence, the Impost In question assessed on merchandise (.omlna; from I'orto Rico Into the United States after the cession wa within the power of Congress, and that body ws not. moreover, ns to such Impost, con'roll-d by the clause re quiring that Impost should lie uniform through rut the United Mates; In other word", the pro vision of the Constitution Just referred to was not applicable to Congress In legislating fur Torto Itlco. In conclusion, it was said that the quca tion when Porto Itlco was to be Incorporat ed was a political question, to he determined by the American people, speaking through Congress, and was not for the courts) to determine. go farther, and to say, that had this particular rase been suggested the language would have hen so vnrled a to exclude It. or It would hive been made a special exception " This cannot be said, and, on the contrary. In order to permit the successful extension of our Institutions, the reasonable rresumptlon Is thit the limitations on the exertion of -rbitrarj power would have been marie more rlnorous. Justice Harlan Illasrntlns Opinion. Justice Hnrlan then announced I1I3 con currence with the dissenting opinion Just delivered by the Chief Justice. He regarded the Fornker act as unconstitutional In Its revenue provisions, and believed that Porto KIco, after the ratification of the treaty with Spain, became a part of the United States Referring to the majority views that the pow.r of our Government with re spect to new territory is tho same povrer which other nations had been accustomed to exercise, Mr. Harlan an Id: I take leave to say that if the principles now announced should ever receive .he sanction of a majority of this court, the result will be a radical and mlsehlevou ihange In our system of government. We will, in that event, pass from the ere of constitutional liberty, guarded and protected by a written Constitution, into nn era of legislative absolutism In respect of man rights that are dear to all peoples who love freedom. In my opinion. Con-res has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Con stitution still less la It true that nongres ran deal with new territories Jut aa other nations have done or may do with their own territories. This nntlon Is under the control of a written Constitution, which J the supreme law of the land, and the only source nf the powers which our Government, or any branch or officer of It, may exercise at any time or at anyplace. Monarchical and despotic Governments, unre strained In their powers bj written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. The Idea that this country may acquire terri tories anywhere upon the- earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them a mere colonies or prov inces. I wholly Inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well aa with the words, nf the Consti tution. The glory of nnr American system of government Is that It wa created by a written Constitution, which protect the people against UNDER THIS DECISION CONGRESS MIGHT EVEN IMPOSE DUTIES UPON ALASKAN IMPORTS-ATTY. GEN. GRIGGS. Clause of the Constitution That Has Been Restricted. The following is the revenue clause of the Constitution which the Supreme Court restricts: "But nil duties, imposts and ex cises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Sertion 8, sir ticle 1 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court holds that this section of the Constitution does not apply to acquired terri tory. "Under this decision Congress might even impose duties upon im ports from the Territory of Alas ka," Former Attorney General Griggs in a statement j-esterday. DECISION IN THE DE LIMA SUIT HOLDS THAT PORTO RICO IS A PART OF UNITED STATES. The first case decided was that of Ellas 8. A. De Lima ct al., plaintiffs In error, against George R. Bldwell, Collector of tho Pork of New York, the case coming to the Supreme Court from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New York. The decision was rendered on behalf of the majority of the court by Justice Brown, the opinion being concurred tn by all the Justices except Justices MeKenna, Shlras and White. The decision hung up on the case coming from the State of New York Involving the levying of $12,000 in duties on goods imported from Porto Rico Into the United States, the collection of the duties having been sustained by the lower court. In effect the decision was that territory acquired by the United States Is a part of the United States and not foreign terri tory, and that such Import duties could not be levied. The decision of the lower court was reversed. Justice Brown announced In the begin ning of his decision that the court un doubtedly has Jurisdiction In this case. He said the case raised the single question whether territory acquired by the United States by cession from a foreign Power remained a "foreign country" within the meaning of the tariff law, and added: The question Involved In this case Is not Whether the susrara were Imnnrfaht mrttrimm tin. der the tariff laws, but whether, coming as they did rrom a port aiiegea to ne aomesuc, xney were Imported from a foreign country In other WOrila whlhar lh,v Wrm ImnnMut at all aa that word ts denned In Woodruff vs. Parham. We think the decision In the Fassett case Is con clusive to tne enect mat. if the question be whether the sugars were Imported or not. such Suestlon could not be raised before the Board of leneral Appraisers and that whether they were Imported merchandise for the reasons given In tbe Fassett case, that a vessel 1 not an im portable article, because the merchandise was not brought from a foreign countrv. Is Imma terial. In either case the article Is not Im ported. Conceding, then, that section 3011 has been repealed and that no remedy exists under the customs administrative act. does It follow that no action whatever will lie? If there be an ad mitted wrong, the courts will look far to supply an adequate remedy. If an action lay at com mon law the repeal of sections 2331 and Mil. regulating proceedings In customs rases (that Is, turning upon the classification of merchandise) to make way for another proceeding before the Board of General Appraisers tn the same das of cases did not destroy tiny right of action that might have existed as to other than cus toms cases, and the fact that by section 35 no Collector snail be liable "for or on account of any rulings or decisions as to the classification ot such merchandise or the duties charged there on, or the collection of any dues, charges or duties on or on account of any such merchan dise " or any other matter which the Importer might have brought before the Board of General Appraisers, does not restrict the right which the owner ot the merchandise might have again't the Collector In cases not falling wtthln the cus toms administrative act. IF THE POSITION- OP THE GOVERNMENT BE CORRECT. THE PLAINTIFF WOIILDBH REMED1IJSS: AND IF A COLLECTOR SHOULD SEIZE AND HOLD FOR DUTIES GOODS BROUGHT FROM NEW ORLEANS OR ANY OTHER CONCEDEDLY DOMESTIC rOKT. TO NEW YORK. THERF) WOULD BE NO iJETHOD OF TESTING HIS RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH SEIZURE IT IS HARDLY POSSIBLE THAT THE OWNER COULD HE PLACED IN THIS POSITION. Action Properly Brought. After citing numerous opinions and author ities to show that the action ot the plain- tins In error was properly aruunv. vi.o court holds that "whether these cargoes ct sugar were aubject to duty depends nolely upon tbe question whether Porto Rico was the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which miy not be passed by the Government it created, or b any branch of It, or even by the people who ordained It, except by amendment. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the su preme law of the land finds lodgement in our con stitutional Jurisprudence. "Constitution Is Over Congress." Justice Harlan also commented on the Idea that Congress could "legislate the Consti tution Into contiguous territory." Such .1 view, he said, might well cause surprise. If not alirm. Congress had no existence except by virtue of the Constitu tion. Ho pointed out that the majority opinion suggested thnt conditions might arise when the annexation ot distant pos sessions would become desirable, so thnt concessions might well be made for a time, that ultimately our own theories might be carried nut. Hut Mr. Harlan dissented from any such theory of our governmental system. He said: Tli "expanding future of our rounto." Justl fjlng tho belief that the Unltid bates Is to become whit is called a "world power." of which so much was heard In the nrgument. does not Justlfv nnv such Juggling with the words of the Constitution as would authorize the couits to hold that the words "throughout the United Wntets" In the taxing clause of the Con stitution do not embrace a "terrltorj of the United Stntes." This Is a distinction which I am unable to make, and which I do not think ought to be mnde when we are endeavoring to ascertain the meaning of a great Instrument of government. The addition of Porto Rico to the territory of the United Stntes has been recognized by direct nctlon upon the p-irt of Concrete. It has legis lated In recognition of the treaty with Spain. If Porto Rico did not bv such nctlon become a part of tho United tate it did become such, at least, wlien I'nngre-s passed the Koraker act. I cinnot believe that Congress may Impose any dutj. Impost or evcle with respect to that ter rltorj and Us people, which Is. not consistent with the constitution 1! requirement that all du ties, imposts and exiise- shall be uniform throughout the United States. JUSTICE GRAY CONCURS, BRINGING OUT NEW POINT. Justice- Gra announced h.g concurrence In the mijorIla conclusion In the Downes case, and In doing Jo said. In substance: The cMl Government or the UnltM Statea cannot Mttpnri Immediately and of Its own force orr terrltorv acquired by war. Such territory mut nceKnrIIy. In the flm Instanrp, be gov erned by th. military prvRcr under the control of the President. n Commander-in-Chief. CMl Korrnment cannot tnk effect an eoon an pos sesion I acquired under military aifthorlty. or even as noon ai that pnswq (don Is confirmed by trraty. It can be put In operation only b th action of the approprlit political department of the Government, at such tlm ard in such de jcre ait that department may determine. There must of necessity bo a transition period. So Ion a Congreps ha not incorporated the territory Into tbe United Stated, neither mili tary occupation nor cession by treatv makes the conquered territory domestic territory In the nene f reenut law?. Dot those laws concern ing foreign countries remiln applicable to th crnquered territory until changed by Congress. Such wan the uranltnou. opinion of thin court, as declared by Chief Juitlce Taney n Fleming s Page, P-How. If CongreFd 1. not ready to construrt a com plete government of thp conquered territory it may establish a temporary government, which Is not subject to all the restriction of the Consti tution. Such wai th effect of the act of Con gress of April 12, lWO. entitled "an act tempo rarily to provide revenues and a civil govern ment for Porto Rico and for other purpose,." The system of duties temporarily established by that act during the transition period was within tho authority of Coneress under thn Con frtittittan of the United States. l;t i TJsej ,ii-ibi mmtmsm t EX-ATTORNEY GENERAL. GRiaQS. a foreign country at the time the sugars woro rhlpped, since the tariff art of July 24. 1S97, commonly known as the Dlngley act. declares that 'there shall be levied, eclitcted and paid upon all articles Imported rroin ro'eiftn countries certain amies tnere In .specified. A foreign country wns e flr.ed by Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Stotey to bo one exclusively within the sovereignty of a foreign nation, and with out the sovereignty of the United States. "The status of Porto Rico was this: The Island had been for some months under military occu pation by the United States as a conquered coun try when, by the second article of the treaty ot peace between tho United States and Spain, signed December 10. ISM and ratified April 11. 1S89. Spain ceded to tha United States the Island of Porto Rico, which has ever since remained In our poeseslon. and has been governed and admin istered by us. if the case depended tolely upon those facts, and the question were broadly pre sented whether a country which had been ceded to us. the cession accepted, possession delivered and the Island occupied and administered without Interference by Spain or any other Power, was a foreign country or domestic territory, it would seem that there could be a little hesitation In an swering this question as there would be in deter mining tho ownership of a house deeded In fee simple to a purchaser, vvho had accepted the deed, gone Into possession, paid taxes and mnde Im provements without let or hindrance from his vendor. BUT IT IS EARNESTLY INSISTED B THE GOVERNMENT THAT IT NEVER COULD HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO ADMIT PORTO RICO INTO A CUSTOMS UNION WITH THE UNITED STATES. AND THAT. WHILB THE ISLAND MAY BE TO A IKKTAIN EAIEST UUMKBTIU TEIUUTUHa. i IT STILL REMAINS A FOREIGN COUN 'F um UNTIL COTTN t THY' TTTiniTR THIC TRY' UNDER THE TARIFF LAWS UNTIL CONGRESS HAS EMBRACED IT WITHIN THE Urat-KAL KLVbltUE HKSTfcM. Precedents. At great length the court then discussed similar cases; arising from previous acquisi tions of territory by the United States, and reviewed very fully former decisions of the court involving questions such as are pre sented in this case. The possessions In con nection with which the main question in volved in this case has risen are, Louisiana, Florida. Texas, California and Alaska. Each case was taken up In order and an alyzed minutely. The court then presented Its conclusions In the following language: As showing tho construction put upon this question by the legislative department, we need only to add that section 2 of the Foraker act makes a distinction between foreign countries and Porto Rico by enacting that the same duties shall be paid upon "all articles Imported Into I'orto Rico from ports other than those ot the United States." which are required by law to be collected upon articles Imported Into the United States from foreign countries. From this resume of the decisions of this court, the Instructions of the executive departments and the above act of Congress. It Is evident that, from 1S03. the date or Mr. Gallatin's letter, to the present time there Is not a hred of au thority, except the dictum In Fleming vs. Page. for holding that a district ceded to and In the possession of the United States remains for any purpose a foreign country. Both these condi tions must exist to produce a change of national ity for revenue purposes. Possession Is not alone sufficient, as was held In Fleming vs Page: nor is a treaty ceding such territory sufficient with out a. surrender of nossesslon. Hie nractlce of the executive departments, thus continued for more than half a century, I entitled to great weight, and should not be disregarded nor over turned except for eosent reasons, and unless it be clear that such construction be erroneous. But were this presented aa an original ques tion we should be Impelled Irresistibly to the same conclusion. By article-11, section Z. of the Constitution, the President Is given power, "by and with the ad , pr0TWeil that two-thirds of the Senators present concur," and by article , ''this Constitution and the laws ot the United States which shall be vice and consent of tne senate, to maxe ireaiies. "'''' " it .? aassssvj , L-sttK:,; i msKMM ?r ssssBF vt rm .. m . s . J- fcftiwr?y F made In pursuince thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made, under tho authority of th,. Lnlted butes, shall be the supreme law of the land." It will be observed lhat no distinction Is mado as to the question of supremacy between law and tnatles. except thit both are controlled by the Constitution A law requires the assent of b'Ah houses of Congress, and, except In certain specified cases, the signature of the President. A treaty Is negotiated and made bv the Presi dent, with the concurrence of twothlrds of the Senators present, hut each of them la the su preme law of the land. Ono of the ordinary Incidents of a tre-ity Is the cession of territory. It Is not too much to jay ii is mo ruie. ratner lhan the exception, that a treaty of peace, following upon a war. provides for a cession of terrlturv to the victo rious partj The territory thus acquired Is ac quired as absolutely aa If the anm-xallon were made, as In the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Consress IT KILLOUS FROM THI THAT IY RTI 5,LI5"?T,.OJ OF T,,B TREATY OK PARIS THE J.'i-l' BWAMB TERRITORY OK TIIH PNITElJ STATFS ALTHOUGH NOT AN OR-o''ilKPT-"""l'roJ'V IN TUB TECHNICAL SENSE OF TIIE WORD. Applies) to evv Terrlturv. It is true Mr. Chief Justice Tanej held In hcott vs Sandford that the territorial clau of the Constitution was conttned. and Intended to be confined, to the terrllorv which at that time be longed to or was clilmid bj the United Btates, and was within their bound irtes. as -eltled by the treaty with Great Hrltaln. and was not In tended to applj to terrltoo nib'equentlj ac quired. He seemed to differ In this construction from Chief Justice Marshall, vvho. In speaking of Florida before It ! ime n Mate, remvrked that 11 continued to be n Hrrltory of the Lnlted State- gov-rned br the territorial clause of the constitution. Hut whatever he the source nf this power. Its uninterrupted exercise by Centres for a entur and the repeated declarations of this court have sf tiled the law that the rlM to acquire ter ritory Involves the right to govern and dispone of It In'leed. It Is fcarcelj n.i much tf v.ty that there his not been a sessim cf Congress since the terrltorj of Louisiana wns purchased, tint that lnd has not enacted legislation based upon the tissuiieii Authority to govern and con trol the territories. It Is an authorllv which nrires, not nece"arll from the territorial clause of the Constitution, but from the necessities of the cnsi. and from the InaMlltv "f the Mates to act upon the subject. Under this power. Con gress may deal with territory acquired bv treaty: m ly administer its Gov eminent as It does that of the District of Columbia: it miy or ganize a hcal territorial government: It may admit It as a State uion an equality with other States; It dm sell ls public lands to Individual citizens or m iv nonate them as horn-steads to actual settlers. In short, when once acquired b treaty, is belongs to the LnlteI states, and Is subject to the disposition of Congress. Terrltorj thus ai quired can remain a forelan country under the tariff laws onlv upon one of two theories: Either that the word "foreign" applies to such eountrles as wern foreign at the time th statute was enacted notwithstanding any subse quent change In their condition, or that thev re main rortlgn under the tnrlff laws until Congress has formally embraced them within the customs union of tho States. The first theory Is obvlously untenable. While a statute U presumed to snak: from the time of Its enactment. It embraces all such persons or things as subsequent! fall with in Its scope, and ceases to opply to such as there, after fall without Its scope. Thus, a statute for bidding the sale of liquors to minors applies not onlv to minors In existence at the time the statute was enacted, but to nil who are subsequently iKirn; and ceases to apply to such as thereafter reach their majority. sv. when the Constitution of the United Stntes declares. In article I. section 11 that the States shall not do certain things, this declaration operates not only upon the thir teen original States, but uron all which subse quently become such. And when Congress places certain restrictions upon the powers of a terri torial legislature, such restrictions cease to op erate the moment such Territory Is admitted ns a State. Rv parity of reasoning a country ceases to be foreign the In-tant It becomes domestic. So too. If Congress see fit to cede one of Its newly acquired territories (even assuming that It had the right to do so) to a foreign ponrer. there could be no doubt that from the dar of such rssIon and the delivery nf possession, such ter rltorj' wculd become a foreign country, and be reinstated as such under the tariff laws Cer tainly, no act of Congress would be necessary In such case to declare that the laws of ths United States had ceased to applj to It. Relation of Tariff I-aws. The theory that a ciuntrv- remain foreign with respect to the tariff laws until Congress has acted by embracing It within the customs union preiupposes that a country may be domestic for one purpose and foreign for another. It may undoubtedly become necessary for the adequate administration of a domestic territory to pass a special act. providing the proper machlnerv and officers, as the President would have no nu thor.ty. except under the war power, to admin ister It himself- BUT NO ACT IS NEfESSARY TO MAKE IT DOMESTIC TERRITORY IF ONCE IT HAS BEEN CEDED TO THE UNI TED STATES WE EXPRESS XO OPINION AS TO WHETHER CONGRESS IS BOUND TO APPIU-PRIATK THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT. This has been much discussed by writers ipon ccrjtltulonal law. but It Is not necessary to consider In this case, as, Congress, made rrcrrpt arproprlatlon of the money stipulated In the treat . This theory also presupposes that territory may he held Indefinitely by Uie United States: that It may me treated In every particular, except for tariff purposes, as domestic territory; that laws may be enacted and enforced by officers of the United States sent there for that purpose: that Insurrections may be suppressed, war carried on. revenues collected, taxes, imposed: In short, that everything may be done which a Government can do within Its own boundaries, and yet that the territory rnay still remain a foreign country: that this state of things mar continue forbears, for a century even, but that until Congress en acts otherwise It still remains a foreign country. To hold that this can he done as a matter ot law we deem to be pure Judicial legislation. We find no warrant for It In the Constitution or In the powers conferred upon this court. It Is true the nonaction of Congress may occasion a tem porary Inconvenience: but It does not follow that coutts of Justice are authorized to remedy Ifby lnvertlng the ordinary meaning of words. If an act of Congress be necessary to convert a foreign country Into domestic territory the ques tion at once suggests Itself. What Is tbe charac ter of the legislation demanded for this purpose? Will an act appropriating money for Its purchase be sufficient? Apparently not. Will an act ap- MR. JUSTICE BROWN ON THE DECISIONS. REPUBLIC SPECIAL. Washington, liny 27. Mr. Justice Brown, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, In discussing the Porto Rlcan de cisions Monday with The Republic corre spondent, said: "This utterance of the Supreme Court to day is one of the most important ever ren dered by this tribunal. Its effects will be felt generations hence. There are two parts to the verdict first, that Porto Rico is not foreign territory; second, that Porto Rico Is a Terrltoo of the United States, and subject to all the laws and privileges which have hitherto been exercised in our govern ment of such possessions. "The oft-repented inquiry whether the natives of Forto Rico and our other newly acquired Insular possessions can now enjoy all ths privileges of cltlxcns of the United Btates did not enter into the purview of tho decisions to-day. That question must be de termined later. In the meantime tho na tives of Porto Rico can enjoy all tbe rights which are granted to the citizens of Ari zona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Alaska. "This decision acknowledges that Porto Rico is eligible to statehood, and implies that when she fulfills tbe demands required for admission into the Union Bhe may be granted all the rights which follow the flag. Until that time, however, Porto Rico will not be entitled to all the privileges which seem to be warranted by tha protection of United States flag. "As to the revenue question, the verdict of the Supreme Court does not cover all the contentions. This much la certain, however, that all the revenue collected un der protest from the Islanders from April 11. 1899. to the passage of the Foraker act must be refunded to them. This date, April 11. Is the day on which Porto Rico became a Territory of tho United States, according to our decision to-day. It is the day on which the Senate ratified the treaty of peace between our country and Spain. About the legal status of the Porto Rleans. It is similar to the legal status of New Mexicans. The status of the Filipinos is not embraced In our decision of to-day, either directly or Indirectly. That question will be considered next fall." DISSENTING OPINIONS IN THE DE LIMA CASE. Justice MeKenna. read a dissenting opin ion in the De Lima case, stating that Jus tices Shlras and White Joined In his views. The majority, he said, proceeded on tho simple proposition that to settle whether Porto Rico Is "foreign country" or "domes tic territory" Is to settle the controversy In litigation In the particular case. But, in his view, It could not turn on so easy a definition. Between the extremes there were other relations which Porto Rico might sustain to the United States, and It could be determined that Porto Rico occupied one of these other relations, and ita products hence were subtect to duties. He cited the cases of United States vs. Rice and Fleming vs. Page, referred to by the maJarlty, and said the latter attempt ed to reconcile them and dismissed a large part of Chief Justice Taney's decision In the Page case as dicta. He thought both cases reconcilable on the ground that both, recognized Inevitable conditions. Such rec ognition made government provident and haphazard. It left to the executive and the legislative departments that which per tains to them. " . . , , The opinions expressed In Fleming vs. Page that the boundaries of our country could not be enlarged or restricted by the advance or retreat- of armies, and that whether duties should be levied depended on Congress granting authority, should bo accepted as wise and considerate of the dif ferent functions of the executive, legislative and Judicial departments; and of their Inde pendence. Why should It then be discarded as) dic DO YOU GET UP WITH A LAME BACK? Kidney Trouble Hakes Ton HlseraMe. Almost everybody who reads the raws. ijauii is sure to Know oi tne wonderful cures rnaae oy lt. Kilmer's Swamp-Root, the great kidney, liver and bladder remedy. It is ths great med cal triumph of the rrirte teenth century; dis covered after years of scientific research by Dr. Kilmer, the emi nent kidney and blad der e-irivslia vA tat wonderfully successful In promptly curing lame back, kidney, bladder, uric acid trou bles and Bright's Disease, which is the wars form of kidney trouble. Dr. Kilmer's Swamp-Root Is not rec ommended for everything but if you have kid ney, liver or bladder trouble it will be found just the remedy you need. It has been tested in so many ways, in hocpital work, tn private practice, among the helpless too poor to pur chase relief and has proved so successful tn every case that a special arrangement haa been made by which all readers of this paper who have not already tried It, may have a sample bottle sent free by mail, also a book telling mors about Swamp-Root and how to f InH nut if vmt liaus IrMnev rr kl t.Al1a When writing mention reading thlsgenerottt otter in mis paper and fC?K ra.,4 ...... a .JJ.... . aaW .awa wtiU JTUUi oUUICt U Dr. Kilmer at Uo.,tting-1 hamton. H. Y. Th regular fifty cent and noma of Bwamp-iossk, dollar sizes are sold bv sM food druettlsts. Kt.aks, Raet Glassas, Thermamitars, laranatara. proprlatlng the duties collected upon imports to and from suh country for the benefit of Its COT ernment be sufficient? Apparently not. Will acta making appropriations for its postal service. SOT the establishment of lighthouses, for the main tenance of quarantine stations, for er-ctlns; pubilo buildings, have that effect ? mil sn act estab lishing a complete local government, but with the reservation of a right to collect duties upon commerce, be adequate for that purpose? l?c-iecf these, nor nil together, will be sufficient, it tne contention of the Government be sound, alncw acta embracing all these provision have been pasfeel In connection with Torto Itlco. and It Is Insisted that It is still a foreign country within the mean ing of the tariff laws. v. E ARK UNABLE TO ACQUIESCE IN THIS ASSUMPTION THAT A TF-lthlTORY MAT BB AT THE SAME TIME BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Jadgment Reversed, A single furth-r point remains to be cemslderetl: It Is insisted that an act of Congress, passed March 24. 0t (31 Stat., lit), applying for th benefit of Forto Rico the amount of customs reve nue received on Importations by the United States from Porto Rico since the evacuation of Porto KIco by the Spanish forces; October IS. lK)g. to January 1. 1S00, together with any fur ther customs revenues collected on lmportatlona from I'orto Rico since January 1. 1900, or shall hereafter be collected under existing law. la a recognition by Concieea ot ths right to collect such duties a upon Importations frtn a forebm country, and a recognition of the tact that Forto KIco continued to be a foreign country until Con gress embraced It within customs union. It m-T be seriously questioned whether this Is anythlns more than a recognition of the tact that there were moneys In the territory not subject to ex isting appropriation laws. Perhap we may go farther and ray that ISO far aa these duties were paid voluntarllT, and will out protest, the legality of the payment waa Intended to be recognized; but It can clearly' navs no retroactive effect aa to moneys tlisntofoi-fpald under protest, for which an action to iscuver tzck had already been brought. Aa th actje-i In this case was brought March 13, 1M. eleven days before the act was passed, t rltht to recover the money sued for could not bs taken away by a subsequent act cf Congress. PhUntHTs sue In ass-mtslt tor money which the collector has In his hands Justly and equitably belecur Ing to them. To say that Coneress could by a subsequent act deprive them of the right to ptcsecute this action would be bevond Its pow er In any event. It shculd not be mtarpretsd so a-. to make It retroactive. WE ARE. THERIHDRE. OP THE OPINION THAT. AT THE TIME THESIS DUTIES WBRC LEVIED PORTO RICO WAS NOT A IUR EIGN COUNTRT WITHIN THB MEANIITO7r -HE TARIFF LAWS. BUT A TEJUUTOFtT W THE UNITED STATES: THAT THB DCTTBB V.FKE ILLEGALLT EXACTED, AKS THAT THE PLAINTIFFS .RE EOTITTKD TO RI CO VER THESI BACK. The Judgment ot tne Circuit Court Cor Us Scuthera District of New York Is, tneiefow. re versed, and the case Is -emended to that court for ft-rther proceedings In consonance with tola opinion. ' tum? If constancy of Judicial declssoa la necessary to regulate the relations and - property rights of individuals. Is not stancv of decision the more necesaarr It may Influence or has influenced tha ac tion oi a nation! If the other great departments ot th Government must look to the Judicial for light, that light should burn steadily. .It should not. like the exhalations ot zoanfe, shine to mislead. Distinctions, ha rontid ed. always had been recognized betwsssm territory acquired and that which was wltA-.; In the acknowledged limits of tba Unltad)' states. - Justice MeKenna then called attsntloa to . the fact that after California's armsaraflcs. our customs laws had been extended enrar It, and asked why this was nsoassaiy if they applied ot their own force. In conclusion. Justice MeKenna said tliasa considerations, to his mind, suggested tba 5 dlfflcultles of any such general and swam- ; Ing view as had been laid down by tha , majority. If correct, neither wa nor tba t rnnmiere1 nation would have) anv eti-i-a- fjs the new situation we would stand bound l, n t.1..1a !!, , 11. SaS.l at.Hja l (a 4ICl,flC0S .O.WU4... . u fuwto MaMaHa therefore, he thought, was essentially la lslatlve and not ludlcl-L Justice Gray announced that ha II dissented from the majority opinion. Ing briefly that Its Judgment appeared to . him Irreconcilable with tha .unanimous . opinion of this court in Fleming vs. Page, and with the opinions of the majority-of the Justices In the case to-day decided of Dowries vs. Bldwell. HlMoarl Facile Extsaslam. REPUBLIC SPEOAU Topeka, Kas.. May 2T. The Missouri Pa cific will extend Its line from I-enora, to Northwest Kansas, to Denver. A corpo at engineers began locating tha Una to-day. This will give from St. Joseph. Ha, and all ; Northern Kansas points a direct Una t Denver. Acquitted of KUllas Pa REPUBLIC SPECIAL. Ardmore. I. T May 27. flam Aabtoa ' acquitted to-aay at ranrs vauay ox J .sTOAimasier xiumuasai s,i 1011. This was the eleventh murder this term before Judge Thorns, and tba only acquittal. KNEW THE WAY OUT. Made a Study of His Food. It is not always that lbs user of food i daratanda about that food, but a entlM ln Cincinnati writing about Grape-NutJ u presses nimseii periecuy. i-e says. a. i lnesa man devoting himself to hard ieub labor requires different food than a man da-i ing muscular work. I became aware of a dull, heavy feeling In my head day by day! which did an untold damage to my wotlt; Verdict. Intestinal Indigestion; punlsbinatst, ! a severe diet list, leaving out starchy tootB,- sugar ana xai. Up to this time, with the most prsrlsa : care In cooking, the ordinary breakfast food', mma to the table a rvastv. starchy maa.J Added to that was sugar and more or -taaf o-hitA hrenri which rave an exceaa starchy food that could not be digested. Tbta f Indigested mass passed Into tbe Intestlivsay creating gas and all of the distressing synty toms. both of body and brain. I was put on Grape-Nuts Stood for tba,--; reason that it Is made of selected part t.f wheat and barley, thoroughly cooked atii the factory, giving to tne ooay tne starcoy v part of the food (.which Is necessary). pca- rtl-pBtoH that Is. turned Into de-xtrosar or,. sssssssssstVsssBlsK aSsss-sssriP-lBsssV iKin, snear. This furnished tXk sweet needs.". I ed without the use of cane sugar, and gavwl me the starchy principle ot food already! passeu into tne secuuu t-vuuitiv-u, d.sitiijt , the same manner as a healthy body dlgaa it- . . --.- -t -v..,- . .- Ma. .J AlLCr eailUg VirUpsr-aSUIa, -Wa Ob B-nJ. aaaS-aa J m a ..A .i ..a.KI. Inia,.i,aaaaw ..a iS ns. health and I also discovered the reason;:! why the claim made on the package Is txa. 'A . .. ..-I -t Aa-Vr.a aataaaa ,,." I inul. OHO JUUUU Ul vajE-.si,a, .imnjjb, perfectly aosoruea oy tne ooay, wiu s more, nutrition than ten nounda esfll rhpnt nr hread. imterfectly dls-sated.1 1 assure anyone that a week cvrtendaj-r j conscientious use ox urspe-xsur-s .wist iw-r-w, far more convincing testimony ussi wrltten words. I subscribe rnyseh a'l ful consumer. Please do no. Embatsl name." Any one. who will write to tbe 3 urn Cereal Co., Ltd., Battle Creek, MM and Inclose stamp, can Be ioppiMowaWB '-1 name and address. T - 5- -feJ "TV"-- J $ fear zs : -5'. E1! "